COURTESY NEWSMAKERS John Rocker shot off his mouth, but can we punish him and not condemn Orlando Brown?

Double standard rears its ugly head

Yet when tests performed on Brown several days later revealed that the damage to the offensive lineman's right eye was likely irreparable, the singular approach condemning Brown encountered alternative and equally justified arguments in his favor. In conjunction with the tests, reports revealed that the Brown family had historically been stricken with glaucoma and other eye-related diseases. Not surprisingly, Brown's public image, much like his eyesight, underwent a transformation. The relevance of Brown's family background provided justification for what otherwise was an authority-defying gesture. Brown's on-field reactions were no longer inexcusable—they had become justifiable and even pardonable. The media began to show sympathy for Brown. Sports commentators who initially had been quick to condemn Brown for his violent, uncalled-for reaction became equally quick to defend him.

The overwhelming majority of American sports fans consider sports reporters to be viable sources of the truth. The shift in the attitude of reporters toward the Brown incident reflected the simultaneous shift in the attitude of the public. Television anchors and couch potatoes alike, overcome with their newfound sympathy, urged that incidents such as this be considered on a case-by-case basis. Motives had to be weighed before penalties and punishments could be considered.

Viewed through the same lens, the cases of John Rocker and Orlando Brown betray the existence of a double standard. In response to a recent Sports Illustrated article in which Rocker, the closer for the Atlanta Braves, bashed gays, blacks, Asians, and all immigrants, baseball fans and normal citizens alike have urged authorities to punish Rocker and to make an example of him. The Rocker incident, they argue, offers authorities an ideal opportunity to deter similar actions by athletes in the future. Even though Rocker's comments are an isolated incident, his punishment must be used as a general warning to all professional athletes.

Such generalizing, however, comes at a price. To make an example of Rocker simply because his situation is ideal for example-making is to act as ignorantly as he did. It is to neglect any consideration of Rocker's motives and deny the possibility of his remarks being the mere consequence of his lack of education.

It is in this light that the public's newfound sympathy for Orlando Brown appears inconsistent if not entirely hypocritical. Case-by-case consideration, admittedly, is the proper course of action. Yet if consistency is to be achieved and firm, unequivocal standards are to be set, Rocker deserves the same public treatment as that received by Brown. Rocker's racist and homophobic comments cannot be viewed independently of the source of his ignorance. His upbringing as a self-proclaimed redneck fueled his remarks. Society, however, did not go to great lengths to educate him in the first place.

Our reluctance to excuse Rocker safeguards us from confronting the truth—namely, that the fault lies largely with us and that the crime, if any exists, is one of our own doing. For the public, then, John Rocker principally serves the role of scapegoat. Society's contempt for Rocker conveniently diverts the blame from society itself—to forgive the pitcher would be simultaneously to transfer the blame to ourselves. Society does not appear prepared to take such a step. The steady public attack on Rocker demonstrates that America is content to remain in a state of self-denial. The ignorance displayed by Mr. Rocker offers an unfortunate commentary on us—the true guilty party. We need to face our misdeeds, and pardon John Rocker.

Back to Sports...